1
Positioning the Sniper Photograph.
Cowards and Pros.
Part I
Slide 1
“Hey Walt. The Sharps is a sniper’s weapon. There’s two types of people who like to
kill from a distance: cowards and pros. In my experience, they’re both dangerous.”
Spoken by Omar in ‘Longmeir’; ‘The Pilot’.
One of the most persistent themes around the discourse of
photography and press coverage to come out of recent conflicts
in Iraq and Afghanistan concerns the paucity of images that
depict actual combat. Numerous (Griffin and Lee 1995),
(Zelizer 2005), (Carr 2006),(Kennedy 2008) (Johnson & Fahmy
2010) have protested that the photographs that appear in the
press present a particular view of war that is sanitised
through limited reference to the destructive consequences of
conflict. Photographs that depict actual combat are rare
(Griffin and Lee systematic analysis of images of war from the
Gulf War revealed that only 3% of photographs depicted combat)
and photographs that depict death are almost non-existent.
Those Photographs that depict the destructive consequences of
war that do enter the public sphere are mediated first by the
temporal and spatial dislocation of distance, rendered
possible through the asymmetric distribution of power and
technology and then by the optical interruption of the lens
that fractures the connectivity of cause and event. Finally
they are mediated by our understanding of digital reality, the
2
blurring of the lines between computer generation and the
physical. Consequently, the Western world is left distanced
and the field of war is split across two conflicting spheres
of understanding: the localised violence and horrors of the
battlefield and the psychologically filtered war in mass
media; “War is no longer confined to the place in which it
occurs as a one-time event – the battlefield, for example –
but is reproduced and broadcast as a picture in display
showcases” (Azoulay, 2001:32).
The images we see on our screens or, to an ever decreasing
degree, as artefacts are not necessarily decoded as truth,
they are realistic rather than real. As Manovich predicted in
1995: “ Traditional film editing and optical printing are
being replaced by digital editing and image processing which
blur the lines between production and post-production, between
shooting and editing”. (1995: 58)
Apart from the stories that reproduce the vernacular images of
atrocities such as Abu Ghraib, there is one exception to the
intolerance of depictions of death or even the possibility of
impending death. Photographs that accompany stories of
snipers, their achievements and their victims appear to avoid
the moral, ethical or strategic dilemmas associated with the
taking, disseminating and viewing of the visceral nature of
war at first hand. Snipers are both lauded and reviled in the
press, the photographs that depict their craft are either
condemned as evidence of atrocity perpetrated by the
individual or they are presented as paragons of national pride
in league tables that list their professional achievements.
3
This paper examines the uses of photography to portray the
convoluted and contradictory role of snipers and sniping as
acts of individual noble endeavour and heinous crime through
an analysis of the photographs that accompanied two separate
journalistic articles. A third article which examines the
consequences of disrupting the established discourse of
sanitised technological warfare is also discussed. Audience
responses to press articles reporting on sniper activities are
complex, quite apart from the moral predicament of
acknowledging the skill in the long distance kill, the concept
of the sniper at times seems to conflict with warrior codes of
honour. These ethical dimension to the sniper’s craft is
hardly a recent phenomenon as Tweedie in an article on a
British run sniper school in Serbia relates:
“The sniper is the bogie man of the battlefield, a fixture
since the 18th century, when reasonably accurate long-range
shooting became possible. A notable early success occurred
during the American War of Independence when, on October 7,
1777, a rebel marksman killed the British general Simon
Fraser.
A month earlier, during the Battle of the Brandywine, Captain
Patrick Ferguson managed to get a tall American officer, quite
possibly George Washington, in his sights. But Ferguson
decided not to shoot because the man had his back turned
towards him.” (Tweedie: 2013)
Slide 2
4
Today, this chivalric distinction is not the issue; the cross
hairs of the sniper’s telescopic sights are a ubiquitous icon
made familiar to us all through the glossy, embossed book
covers of novels such as Frederick Forsyth’s 1973 novel; “The
day of the Jackal”, simulated imagery depicting famous
assassinations, numerous films and, more recently in the high
resolution video games predicted by Manovich.
Part II
Slide 3
In February 2013, Mor Ostrovski a member of a sniper team in
the Israeli army (IDF) earned a certain notoriety when he
posted an image on his personal Instagram site. The image he
posted was taken through the telescopic sights of his sniper’s
rifle and showed the crosshairs centred on the back of the
head of a Palestinian youth. Ostrovski was investigated by the
Military Police and he was disciplined under military law.
Inside Israel the story was given significant coverage and the
influential news organisation, Yedioth Ahronoth, were granted
an interview with the IDF which was disseminated through other
Israeli media portals. The IDF spokesman reported to Ynetnews
that they had concluded; "Since the documented offence isn't
criminal and since the legal procedure conducted by the
soldier's commanding officer was found appropriate, a
disciplinary action was decided to be sufficient." (Times of
5
Israel. Feb 20th 2013) Ostrovski closed his Instragam account
but his photograph had already been made public through
electronic and print dissemination by world and domestic (i.e.
Israeli and Palestinian) news outlets. The disquiet felt in
Israel about the behaviour of this soldier was echoed in the
reports published by the world’s press and in many cases
served as a vehicle to reinforce the established discourses of
the region and the conflict. This was not the first incident
involving members of the IDF taking inappropriate imagery
while on active service but it arguably ranks among the most
contentious incidents not involving the photographic practices
of female members of the IDF.
Slide 4
The other arenas of conflict that has featured prominently in
the media for more than a decade that makes more insistent
demands on British audiences are obviously the interventionist
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2011 the Daily Telegraph
and the Daily Mail published an article by Toby Harnden,
(edited by Oliver Pickup) author of the book, ‘Dead Men Risen:
The Sniper’s Story’, about two British snipers stationed in
Helmand Province in 2009. In the article they are referred to
as; Potter and Osmond, who, the reader is informed, are
‘identified by pseudonyms for security purposes’ and that
between them they chalked up seventy five confirmed kills in
just forty days. The article is accompanied by six photographs
to illustrate their tale.
6
Three of the photographs are purported to be taken through the
telescopic sights of a sniper’s rifle. Both the sequence of
photographs from Afghanistan and the single image from
Palestine share narratives of an almost omnipotent power over
life and death. In both cases the audience is invited to share
the sniper’s optically enhanced observation of people who are
made unaware of the imminent possibility of their own deaths
by the immense distances over which a sniper operates. The
scrutiny that we as audience bring to the photographs shares a
further attribute with the original circumstances that
generated the photographs. An army sniper is required to
assess the person in their sights to determine whether or not
they constitute a legitimate target which nominally translates
into an identifiable threat to whatever strategic objectives
are currently in force. Although spatially and temporally
dislocated from events, the audience is also encouraged to
assess the morality of the judgements made by an individual
soldier. Ultimately we are being asked to either condemn or
condone either the decision to shoot or, as Ostovsky’s case
illustrates, the decision to place the crosshairs over a
potential target. It could be argued that the sniper’s role on
the battlefield places far greater demands on individual
morality than for any other soldier on the ground. The
responsibility for taking the life of an individual identified
through the telescopic sights of a weapon can only lie with
the person with the finger on the trigger.
7
Ostovsky’s photograph is unquestionably disturbing, a
denotative analysis of the image reveals that the picture
comprises two focal lengths, when the photograph was taken the
camera was positioned a short distance away from the eyecup of
the telescopic sights with the youth shown in optically
enhanced telephoto, the crosshairs just to the left of his
head. Around the frame of the sights, the immediate
environment shared by Ostovsky and the youth can be seen in
the neutral perspective of a standard focal length lens
without light filtration. The connotative narrative that
emerges from this juxtaposition of focal lengths is one that
serves to emphasise factors about the relationship that exists
between snipers and their victims. Snipers regularly operate
from a range of over 10000 metres, often from a concealed
position. As a result intended targets do not normally know
they are in the sights of a sniper, they are vulnerable and
defenceless against an adversary they not only cannot see, but
whose presence they are often totally unaware of. Except in
the case of assassination, the anonymity of the sniper is
often mirrored in the anonymity of the target. Both the
vulnerability and the anonymity of the youth in Ostovsky’s
photograph are illustrated by the evidence of distance, the
relaxed posture of the youth and the fact that we can only see
the back of his head.
The most obvious difference between Ostovsky’s story and
Osmond and Potter’s is the fact that any narrative that is
constructed around Ostovsky’s actions are derived from a
single autobiographical photograph and refer to a discrete
8
event. Whereas Osmond and Potter’s story is concerned with a
tour of duty in Afghanistan and the article published by the
Telegraph and the Daily Mail is taken from a book and is
illustrated with six rather than just one photograph.
The first image in the sequence depicts six figures, five
standing and one crouched, the standing figures are shown
walking along a road beside a compound and at least two
weapons can quite clearly be discerned thus confirming to the
viewer that at least part of the group potentially constituted
a legitimate target. The photograph is framed and dissected by
the view through a telescopic sight; this is the scene as
observed by the sniper. In case there is any doubt the
accompanying caption in the Daily Telegraph states: ‘Armed
Taliban fighters seen through the scope of a sniper's rifle in Helmand in 2009.’ In
contrast to Ostovsky’s photograph the figures in the scope are
engaged in the same conflict that has placed the British
sniper on the ground in Afghanistan, they are the foe, who
have taken up arms to fight for their own ideological
position. They are also walking forwards towards the sniper,
towards British positions, they are active. Denotatively,
Ostovsky’s target was engaged in none of these activities.
However, it is not only the implications of intent or the
evidence of weapons that mark the differences in these images.
The narrative that emerges from Ostovsky’s photograph is a
narrative of inference, there is the potential for atrocity
held in the mute instance of the photograph but, as far as we
know, it is never consumated. The narrative structure of
9
Osmond and Potter’s story is illustrated as a linear dramatic
structure suggesting a chronological performance.
The Second and third images from the sequence are also framed
by the details of the telescopic sights. In the second image
soldiers in uniform (we are informed that they are from 4
rifles) can be made out inspecting two prone figures on the
ground. In the background a group of Afghan men can be seen,
half hidden in a ditch observing the soldiers. In the third
picture the Afghan men have moved forward to collect the
bodies, two soldiers are still in evidence on the scene. The
background for the second and third photographs is a compound
wall of similar height and appearance to the wall shown in the
first photograph. In terms of classic dramatic narrative,
these photographs represent the first two elements of plot
structure. The first image provides the exposition; the
adversaries in the conflict are identified as is the mise en
scène, the environment, in which the narrative unfolds while
the second and third images provide the ‘climax’ ,the two bodies
shot by the unseen protagonist are now lying dead on the
ground. The rising tension in the action is held by the
framing of the telescopic sights, the targets are identified,
and the sniper takes aim and shoots. But even a cursory
analysis of the photographs reveals a problem with this
particular narrative. It is interrupted, temporally
dislocated, the article reveals that the dead bodies in the
road are not individuals from the figures in the first
photograph and we are made aware that multiple threads exist
in this narrative. The text and the captions remind us that
10
this is essentially a description of the skill,
professionalism and the effectiveness of two snipers during a
tour of duty in Afghanistan evidenced by, in the first
instance, the number of recorded confirmed kills attributed to
each. It also provides a detailed account of one particular
incident during this tour in which Osmond shot two Taliban
fighters with a single bullet. The inclusion of this incident
as a subplot to the main storyline presented contiguously
through the photographs, reiterates the dialectic of the
sniper’s position in the public conscious. The intertwining of
two narrative threads might be considered disingenuous but
equally its duality could be argued to reflect a media
articulation of our relationship with the sniper. In either
case its primary effect is to disrupt the visual narrative of
the sequence of photographs thereby helping to maintain the
mythology that surrounds the sniper.
Certain types of shots are awarded a special nomenclature, the
one bullet two dead Taliban achieved by Osmond is known as a
Quigley in British army slang and is a reference to the 1990
western; ‘Quigley Down Under’ in which Tom
Selleck's character manages the 'trick shot’. Photographs two
and three are records of this event, the two Taliban were
riding a motorbike, one was a known Taliban leader and the
pillion passenger was carrying a walkie-talkie which under the
rules of engagement, was designated a hostile act. Osmond
fired a single shot which killed both men. The fact that there
is no motorcycle in the first photograph confirms that it
records a completely different event that, just like
11
Ostovsky’s single image, offers no conclusion. I would argue
that the denotative similarities evident in all three
photographs are sufficient to suggest that they were taken
from the same location (possible an established sniper’s
observation point) but the repeated framing through telescopic
sights, although not explicit, detracts attention from the
convoluted temporality of the narrative threads. In other
words the singularity of the ‘Quigley’ shot is enmeshed within
the extended tour and the photographic sequence is provided
with a possible connotation of chronological continuity. In
another departure from Ostovsky’s image, the viewer is
presented with evidence that the Taliban are armed and active
in the area, the implication reinforced by the framing being
that Osmond and Potter were justified in taking action.
In the context of the article, photographs one, two and three
elevate Osmond and Potter to hero status, individual
celebrities within the anonymous hierarchy of military
culture. Harnden quotes their commanding office in the Daily
Telegraph article:
“Major Mark Gidlow-Jackson describes Potter and Osmond as the “epitome of the
thinking riflemen” that his regiment sought to produce. “They know the
consequences of what they’re doing and they are very measured men. They are both
highly dedicated to the art of sniping. They’re both quiet, softly spoken, utterly
charming, two of the nicest men in the company, if the most dangerous.”” (Harnden
2011)
It is at this point in the sequence that the nature of the
celebrity status afforded snipers becomes apparent. Entwined
12
within the detailed account of the incident are statical data
relating to the shot. We are informed that both Potter and
Osmond use an L96 sniper rifle that uses 9.62mm ammunition and
that the majority of kills were achieved at a range of 1,2oo
metres. We are also informed that Potter achieved a kill at a
range of 1,430 metres and that Osmond’s Quigley was a 196
metre shot. This statistical data resonates with the type of
information that that accompanies reports on the prowess of
top athletes. The report and the photographs reiterate the
skill displayed by the snipers n achieving their goals.
Photographs four and five carry the sporting metaphor further,
photograph four denotes a probably temporary wooden structure,
a wall and a roof resting on a beam. Two British army ration
packs are on prominent display labelled with a union flag and
a menu number. On the top plank below the beam the words;
“sniper hits” has been chalked with eleven chalked stick
figures drawn underneath. The caption reads: “Potter and
Osmond's sniper tally at PB Shamal Storrai.” Photograph five continues
the sporting metaphor, Osmond and Potter are shown sitting
astride the motorcycle the two Taliban were riding when they
were shot. The photograph can therefore be interpreted as the
ultimate trophy photograph, the spoils of war and the winner’s
cup. The sixth and final photograph in the sequence wraps up
the narrative, it depicts Osmond and Potter walking away from
the camera looking relaxed and carrying the tools of their
trade. In terms of dramatic structural sequence it represents
denouement or resolution, the concluding act in the narrative.
This sense of closure is reinforced by the caption: “Potter (left)
13
and Osmond leave PB Shamal Storrai at the end of their tour, two hours after
achieving their final two kills.” The adherence to dramatic structure
that this final photograph represents is only achieved through
the same manipulation of temporality evident in the opening
three photographs. The caption informs us that the photograph
records the last day of the tour; it also informs us that
Osmond and Potter have achieved their final two kills. It
would be disingenuous to suggest duplicity here, the only
connection to the singular event with the motor bike is in the
number of Taliban shot. However, the presentation of the
photographs as sequential narrative and the ubiquity of
dramatic structure could potentially aggregate the discrete
temporal events depicted in photographs one, four and six with
the sequence (two, three and five) that recount the ‘Quigley’
episode.
One feature of the photographs that is really intriguing is
the suggestion that the power of celebrity is so potent that
it can challenge a necessity for anonymity. In Photograph five
both Osmond and Potter are facing the camera; both men have
had their identities disguised through the simple expedient of
placing a black bar over their eyes in post-production.
Photograph six shows both men in full combat uniform,
including helmets walking away from the camera, in both
photographs the demands for anonymity have been acknowledged
yet caption five informs us that Osmond is shown on the left
while caption six identifies Potter on the left and we need to
remember that both these names are pseudonyms.
Slide 5
14
One other intriguing photograph from Osmond and Potter’s story
came to light; it was taken from an advertisement for
Harnden’s book published in the Daily Telrgraph, it depicts
the two dead Taliban lying in the road through the telescopic
sights but in this image, the camera is further back and the
viewer is presented with the peripheral detail of the sniper’s
camoflaged position. The juxtaposed perspectives of the
diferent focal legths reinforces the idea of the distance
between the sniper and his target. However, it also connotes a
sense of remoteness that potentially detracts from the
intimacy of the constructed narrative presented in the
published article.
Part III
Slide 6
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed
men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter" (Ernest
Hemmingway 1936)
The argument for assimilating snipers into the fraternity of
sporting celebrities is borne out by the reaction of the
world’s press to Ostovsky’s photograph. The image speaks of
the unassailable, omnipotent power of the sniper, the decision
to take life divested of its moral and ethical implications by
the intervention of the optical power of the telescopic sight
and the ballistic power of the bullet. The distance between
the sniper and their target reduces the humanity of the
15
encounter; it is a question of technologies and perception. It
is only by placing their eye to the cup of their telescopic
sight that the target comes into sharp focus, the peripheral,
unmediated, environment around the sight, the environment
inhabited by the sniper, is subsumed by the minute detail
picked out in the sights. To paraphrase Voltaire; Ostovsky’s
photograph appears to be a depiction of power but without any
sense of responsibility. It is also unsporting, the potential
target is a seated youth, apparently unarmed and with his back
to the sniper. He may not have been shot but the connotation
of the photograph suggests that he is not in the game and, I
would suggest, it is this fact more than any other that
separates Ostovsky’s photograph from other ‘through the
sights’ photographs.
Slide 7
The concept of snipers being afforded celebrity status based
on sporting rather than military prowess is also evident in
press coverage recounting stories without the benefit of
‘through the sights’ photographs. A common feature of sniper
stories is that they frequently either focus on body count
tallies or extreme distance shots. There are various league
tables that publish the name, nationality and regiment of
individual outstanding snipers alongside information about the
type of weapon used and the ammunition favoured by the sniper.
These tables are invariably ordered according to the longest
distance of shot.
Slide 8
16
The current holder of the record is Craig Harrison (The silent
assassin) a British sniper with the Household Calvary whose
record breaking shooting of two Taliban fighters was widely
reported in the international press. In accordance with the
conventions that have propagated around the myth of the
sniper, the coverage included comparative and statistical
information on Harrison’s rifle and a number of detailed
accounts about the event. In addition to the laudatory
press coverage, Harrison’s shooting ability has also been
recognised by the Guinness book of Records.
Slide 9 – Slide 10
Unfortunately all the media attention given to Harrison in
201o put his and his family’s lives in great danger. The
coverage of Harrison’s exploits included a posed portrait,
that was reproduced in broadsheet and tabloid papers around
the world along with details of where he lived, that he was
married (to a hair dresser) and had a daughter (about to take
her GCSE exams).
Slide 11
In May 2013 the Daily Telegraph reported that Harrison had
been awarded £100,000 after the “MOD blew his cover after a
catastrophic blunder” (Hall. 2013) In her article Hall
recounts:
“Craig Harrison and his family were put in danger of being kidnapped by Al Qaeda
sympathisers and was forced to quit his Army home, temporarily leave the country
and remove his teenage daughter from school before her GCSE exams, after a
“catastrophic” blunder, according to police intelligence. The stress led to the
LONGEST CONFIRMED SNIPER KILL
17
Household Cavalry veteran, who was commended for killing two Taliban gunmen
from more than a mile-and-a-half away, being placed on permanent sick leave and
he is now to be medically discharged from the Army.”
Harrison gave his interview to the media on the understanding
that in accordance with MOD protocols that recognise the high
target value of snipers for terrorists; his identity would not
be revealed. However, the MOD neglected to inform the press of
the need to maintain his anonymity and his personal details
were published around the world.
Part IV
"Man or woman, young or old, my sights are steady, and my trigger cold. Walk or
run, laugh or cry you’re in my A.O., now you die!" (A.O. - Area of Operations)
Anonymous quote attributed to an American sniper.
Slide 12
These stories all serve to illustrate the complex dialectic of
the sniper’s role on the twenty first century battlefield,
hero or villain; warrior or celebrity, a killer devoid of
empathy or dedicated professional operating with surgical
precision. The evidence suggests that snipers fill the
requirements for all these labels and that we shouldn’t be
surprised to see Ostovsky’s passive photograph cast him in
the role of villain while Osmond and Potter’s image of two
dead bodies lying on a dusty road elevate them to warrior
heroes. In the age old traditions of such heroes, a champion
arises to exemplify the codes of the art of war, Harrison
18
holds the record for the longest shot, other snipers have
racked up a greater tally of confirmed kills, others leave
trademark signatures to tell the world whose finger was on the
distant trigger that unerringly took out the target; “For one
woman, a member of Alpha Group, the anti-terrorist arm of the Russian special
forces, it is a shot to the victim’s left eye.” (Tweedie: 2013)
Our relationship with the sniper as articulated through the
press appears somewhat chaotic if not actually schizophrenic
in nature. The question that arises from the sniper photograph
is; how does the fascination with the myth of the sniper
intersect or inform other narratives of war? The tensions that
are created go further than the typical discourses of the
morality of the interventionist wars waged by the West since
the first Gulf war of 1991. In the asymmetric wars of today
which pits nationally sponsored technological superiority
against a mostly unidentified ideologically motivated enemy,
sniper stories are almost unique in bringing individual voices
to the discourse. In his analysis of media representation of
contemporary conflict since the First Gulf War, Griffin (2010)
argues:
“The dearth of actual combat coverage was echoed in the lack of images revealing
destructive consequences of the war. Our [Griffin and Lee 1995] data supported the
observation made by many other commentators that this was a ‘sanitized’ war”
(Griffin 2010: 27)
He goes on to discuss the use of still frames taken from video
cameras mounted on laser guided munitions:
19
“This simulated view… was quickly seized upon as an emblem of a new kind of
high-tech warfare, spawning descriptors such as ‘Nintendo warfare’ to characterise
the abstract electronic imagery that seemed to be replacing images of soldiers in
combat.” (Ibid)
The stories of the snipers and their victims offer a different
perspective to the narratives of smart munitions dropped
remotely with pin point precision on a target, or the atrocity
of the faceless suicide bomber who blows himself up in a
crowded market place. The polar extremes of death and
destruction brought about by discriminate western technologies
and indiscriminate ideological sacrifice both relegate loss
through death to statistic al data. The individuals who die
often seem to simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong
time. The sniper redresses the balance, the decision to shoot
or not shoot is based on what the sniper ‘reads’ through his
telescopic sights. Although mute and asymmetric in power; a
relationship between the sniper and the target nevertheless is
formed.
Recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been extensively
photographed from what are essentially two distinctive
viewpoints. The first takes the perspective of the dominant
political and military agencies. Photographs that are
disseminated through official sources and compliant media
channels seek to reinforce messages of neoliberal intervention
(Freedman, 2005) including moral obligations of governance,
the rigorous adherence to the legalities proscribed by
international bodies and the sanitisation of war through the
extensive use of technologies. War reporting in the twenty
20
first century has largely been articulated through the mantras
of shock and awe, precision munitions and limited collateral
damage all of which reinforce the insistence of a
sanitisation of war. As Zehfus suggests “praise for precision
not only produces Western warfare as ethical but also both
relies upon and reproduces a particular kind of ethics, based
on the notion of non-combatant protection”. (2010: 543)
The second perspective is far more immediate and personal; it
deals with individual experiences of local events during war.
These photographs are generally either endorsed through
embedded journalism or they are unsanctioned records taken by
serving soldiers and independent journalists. Although
predominantly benign in terms of their content, as Abu Ghraib
and other images of atrocity have graphically demonstrated,
unsanctioned photographs can have a profoundly disruptive
impact to received narratives. The convergence of digital
technologies such as camera phones and helmet cameras has
ensured that every soldier on a contemporary battlefield is
potentially carrying not only a photographically enabled
device, but quite possibly a means of near instantaneous
dissemination.
The one area where all the competing narratives appear to
converge is the very specific continued use of snipers on the
battlefield by coalition forces. Veneration of the arsenal of
technology and the anonymity of monolithic military might that
features so prominently in the official archives; is mirrored
21
by the recognition and acknowledgement of the individual; the
photographs that dominate the personal archives of the
vernacular. The spatial discrepancy of high tech warfare and
the soldier on the ground is adjusted by matching the skill of
the individual with the immense range of the weapon he
controls. However, this coalescence of perspectives still
fails to offer a unified view of the nature of contemporary
war and the confusion that ensues can be discerned in media
coverage of the practices of snipers. The atrocity
(vernacular) photographs that have entered the public sphere
all have one thing in common; they are the photographs of
human encounter. They are photographs of visceral proximity
whereas the official photographs that celebrate the arsenal of
drones and smart munitions are photographs of technology,
distance and anonymity.
Sniper photographs bridge the gap between the technologically
sanitised war fought at arm’s length against an enemy who,
while unsponsored and unencumbered by the status of nationhood
can nevertheless engage in a war of media spectacle on equal
terms with the west and the immediacy of for survival of the
individual combatants on the front line.
Perhaps, it is this humanising factor in a largely technical
war that has created our schizophrenic relationship with the
sniper. The death and destruction that accompanies all wars
has been made remote by the first world’s return to
discriminate warfare. The excesses of indiscriminate war made
real by the bombing of civilians in their cities that
culminated with the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
22
the resulting spectre of the mushroom cloud that kept the
metaphorical fingers off the trigger during the Cold War
stand-off of assured mutual annihilation, have been replaced
by assurances of pinpoint accuracy and limited collateral
damage. Morality has been restored to the business of killing.
It is perhaps ironic then this new morality is driven by
technological advancements in accuracy motivated partially by
the demands of an ever increasing legal dimension to waging
war, that the ability to make moral or ethical decisions is
being taken out of death.
Snipers and smart bombs satisfy our competing emotions of
revulsion and fascination with war. They both identify their
targets and therefore both are discriminate in their acts of
destruction. Both destroy their targets from long range and
without warning, the smart bomb takes out hard targets, the
sniper soft but in both cases the minutiae of death and
destruction can be obscured (sanitised) by distance. The
sniper, concerned with the death of an individual, is the
paradigmatic example of the discriminate infantry soldier
while the smart bomb, free of moral or ethical dimension is
the paradigmatic example of discriminate long range projectile
munition.
Part V
Slide 13
23
While writing this article it was reported that a British
sniper had managed to kill six Taliban with a single bullet.
The story was widely published in the press, including ‘The
Independent’ at the end of March 2014. The MOD and the press
have obviously learnt from the disastrous coverage of Craig
Harrison’s story and we are simply told the sniper’s age (20)
and that he is a lance corporal in the Coldstream Guards. We
are however given the statistical information that the shot
was made from a distance of 850 metres and that the same
sniper also shot a Taliban machine gunner at a range of 1,340
metres. The six men died when the sniper shot a Taliban
fighter who appears to have been wearing a suicide vest. The
article does include a quote from the commanding officer,
given to the Daily Telegraph:
“Lt Col Richard Slack, commanding officer of 9/12 Royal
Lancers, described what happened as British and Afghan troops
engaged about 15 to 20 Taliban fighters. “The guy was wearing
a vest. He was identified by the sniper moving down a tree
line and coming up over a ditch,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “He
had a shawl on. It rose up and the sniper saw he had a machine
gun. “They were in contact and he was moving to a firing
position. The sniper engaged him and the guy exploded. “There
was a pause on the radio and the sniper said, 'I think I’ve
just shot a suicide bomber’. The rest of them were killed in
the blast.” (Johnston. 2014)
Discriminate and indiscriminate intent and death neatly
wrapped in the statistics of war.
24
References.
Azoulay, A. (2001) Death’s Showcase: The Power of Image in
Contemporary Democracy. Massachusetts. MIT
Baldwin, H. & Coveny, J. (2010) Longmire "Pilot" Based on the
Walt Longmire Mystery Novels By Craig Johnson. Los Angeles.
The Shephard/Robin Company.
Carr, D. (2006) Show me the Bodies. New York Times . Published
June 5th .
Freedman, L. (2005) ‘The age of liberal wars’, Review of
International Studies, 31 (2005), pp. 93-107
Griffin, M. (2004) Picturing America’s ‘War on Terrorism’ in
Afghanistan and Iraq: Photographic motifs as News Frames.
Journalism 5(4): 381-402
Griffin, M (2010) Media Images of War. Media, War and Conflict.
3(1) 7-41.
Griffin, M & Lee, J. S. (1995) Picturing the Gulf War:
Constructing Images of War in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News
and World Report. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 72(4)
813-825.
Harnden, T. (2011) Dead Men Risen: The snipers' story. The Telegraph 13th
March 2011.
25
Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8376808/Dead-Men-
Risen-The-snipers-story.html accessed 22/02/2014.
Harnden, T. (2011) Dead Men Risen: The Snipers' Story. .
London. Quercus Books
Hall, M. (2013) “Army sniper gets £100k after MoD blew his cover” The
Telegraph. 22 May 2013. Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10072635/Army-
sniper-gets-100k-after-MoD-blew-his-cover.html accessed
22/02/2014.
Hemmingway, E. (1936) On the Blue Water: A Gulf Stream Letter. Esquire
April 1936.
Johnston. I. (2014) ‘Army sniper kills six Taliban fighters with single bullet’ The
Independent 31 March 2014. Available at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/army-sniper-
kills-six-taliban-fighters-with-single-bullet-9226881.html
Accessed 02/04/2014
Kennedy, L. (2008) Securing Vision: Photography and US foreign
Policy. Media, Culture and Society. 30(3): 279-294
Manovich, L (1995) The Paradoxes of Digital Photography.
Photography After Photography. Memory and Representation in the Digital Age.
Exhibition Catalogue. G+B Arts. Germany.
Pickup, O. (2011) British sniper takes out TWO Taliban with a single bullet:
Extraordinary images show how crack shot killed insurgents. Mail Online 15th
26
March 2011. Available at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366154/British-
sniper-kills-Taliban-bullet-new-book-reveals.html accessed
20/02/2014
The Times of Israel (2013) ‘IDF probes soldier’s controversial Instagram
post’ available at: http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-probes-
soldiers-controversial-instagram-post/ accessed 27/03/2014
Tweedie, N. (2013) 'The sniper knows if his target is happy or sad. It’s
personal' The Telegraph 12 Apr 2013. Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9990690/The-
sniper-knows-if-his-target-is-happy-or-sad.-Its-personal.html
Accessed 27/03/2014
Zelizer, B. (2005) Death in War Time: Photographs and the
“Other War” in Afghanistan. The Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics. 10(3):26-55
Zehfus, A, (2010) Targeting: Precision and the production of
ethics. European Journal of International Relations. 17 (3) 543-566
Top Related